re:becca

I'm baaaack

2012-01-27T13:31:00.000-08:00

Hello!
Now I've got the baby out of the way, let's get back to content creation, shall we?

I've been inspired recently by a spat of emails from brands I have made purchases from asking me to "Like" them on Facebook. That's literally the subject line of the email: "Like us on Facebook!"

I just wanted to let you know that if you choose to Like a brand on Facebook, you're basically giving marketers free information. If you know you're doing this it's fine. I'm not opposed to being a fan of a brand and displaying my affection for them publicly. The way Google is scooping up our information, we're headed for a series of relationship train wrecks. I can see it now: My pastor notices that I just gave the Thumbs Up to a video called "Sh*t White Girls Say" - uh oh. (But wait, does that mean he was looking at the video too?)

Back to Buy Buy Baby's email. I'm not going to like them on Facebook, and here's why (I hope they are listening): the last time I was in their store, I walked past a huge sign that said We Accept Competitor Coupons! When I arrived at check-out, I handed over a coupon of theirs I had actually remembered to save AND remembered to bring with me to the store (as a new, sleep deprived mom, they should appreciate what an accomplishment that was!). The cashier rejected my coupon telling me it had expired...by three days. They just lost my Like.

Have you recently liked a brand on Facebook? Which one?

Don't worry. This is not turning into a Mommy blog.

Q: I'm not interviewing for a specific position but I reached out to a few individuals, mostly to network and find out more about what they do specifically/more about their field. But I'm technically not supposed to ask them for a job so it's kind of tough.

2011-03-25T09:25:00.000-07:00

A: Ahh, okay. So, I'm sure you'll ask questions like "what advice do you have for a college graduate in this field looking for a job right now" ? But you'll also want to ask them how they got their job or how they got started in their field. Nine times out of 10 their answer will start out: "well, I had this friend who worked there..."

Ask if the company they work for (or companies like it) only hire people who have interned there before. Ask if places will let you work on a freelance or temp basis to get your foot in the door. Ask if it's cool in that industry (or at that company) to send a resume and cover letter even if there isn't a job opening currently. Some companies will just throw incoming resumes in the trash if there are no current open positions or if they are in the middle of a hiring freeze.

And this is the most important question: Ask which associations people in that field belong to - ask if you can join as a student member for now. And honestly, this will be your best shot at hooking yourself up with a job.

Can you meet any of these people in their office at work? You might get lucky and they could introduce you to the HR person - that would be stellar. But not all industries are the same. Looking for a job in a chemistry lab is totally different from looking for a job in the art auction world.

In artist-related fields, it gets very um, intimate. For these jobs, you'll want to ask whose shoes you'll have to shine or car you'll have to wash. Ask if any of them need babysitters or dog walkers. This industry is more personal than professional. Find out where they get their hair done or have their coffee. Sheesh. Good luck! And ask if you can use their name as a reference in case you follow up on any of their contacts.

Also try to be courteous of their time. Have your cell phone on the table so you can discretely glance at the time every now and then. If you're not good at being discrete, just let them know you're trying to keep it short to respect their time (even if they say "take all the time you need". Don't). It's very nice of them to meet with you. Send them a follow up email thanking them a couple weeks later.

Q: I am used to seeing my boyfriend on a regular basis because we go to college together. Do you have any advice for after graduation when we live in different states and will be busy starting new lives/careers?

2011-03-08T11:49:00.000-08:00

A: Yes, don’t listen to other people’s advice. Ha! I know that sounds hypocritical coming from an advice column but nobody can predict the future. If you both feel like there’s more road to travel in your relationship, than find a method of communication that works well for both of you. If he’s not a texter, don’t ask him to start. Face time is important so using something like Skype would be great. It also helps to have a set time each day or week to speak to each other, making adjustments as things come up (they will). If at all possible, share the burden of traveling to see one another. If he’s always driving or flying to see you, make the effort to visit him.

The biggest favor you can do each other is skip the whole paranoia / jealousy fever. If you don’t trust him 1,000 miles away, you can’t trust him 100 yards away. Make sure he can trust you too. Be honest with him and yourself if you’ve met somebody else. Respect him enough not to just be a crutch of familiarity as you stumble through your strange new life. Sometimes we have a hard time letting go of even inanimate things like blankets, posters, clothes, much less relationships that aren’t meant to be a part of our new phase of life. So, it’s understandable that this happens.

I don’t need to tell you that it’s not going to be easy. You’ll miss each other so much it will feel like you’re not 100% present in your current locations. Just find a way to make it work until it’s not working anymore, or until one of you decides to relocate – and that situation is a whole other column. Good luck!

I received an email from a college student asking for advice...

2011-03-07T11:16:00.000-08:00

Q: In college, it is easy to casually meet up with someone you are interested in. However, I will be living at home after graduation and want advice on how to meet guys or what to expect about dating while working in the professional world.

A: This is more common that you think. Most graduating college students are entering the workplace single – as in, not even dating anyone. So you’ve got this big stamp on your forehead that says “Available” as soon as you begin your new life. While it does become more difficult to meet guys once you’re living off campus and possibly even living at home while looking for a job, there is one time-tested solution: friends. And friends of friends.

This might scare some of you introverts, but don’t worry. You don’t necessarily have to start making new friends from scratch. Thanks to Facebook and LinkedIn, you should be able to find out if any of your friends have other friends or relatives living or working near you. The hard part will be forcing yourself to join them when they invite you out to events and parties. Just don’t go there looking for a date immediately. These are the events where you’re going to meet the friends who might later introduce you to someone you might want to date.

When I first moved to D.C., I didn’t have any friends here. My friend from high school in Florida had a cousin here, who was kind enough to invite me to her friend’s party. I ended up dating one of the guys on her friend’s soccer team after meeting this group out several times. It ended badly, but hey, at least I tried.
Too often, college grads go for the immediate gratification – date me now! Give it some time. Let yourself attend a few of these events and make some friends or become better friends with existing circles. This is also beneficial to getting the background scoop on any guy you want to date. If you’ve been hanging out long enough, you’re more likely to find out which guy is worth dating.

Ask around and you’ll learn that many successful relationships began because a friend introduced some girl to some guy – and they took it from there! A couple of footnotes on the above advice: if you’re invited to an event you don’t feel comfortable attending, don’t go. This isn’t a free pass for shy people to not attend a dinner party. This means you’re not going to find the right fit for you if you constantly attend events you don’t enjoy. And you’re going to look miserable. No one wants to date that.

As for the second part of your question about dating while working in the professional world – if you meant dating at work when you’re the new college graduate, I’m going to put a flag on the play right now. There are more reasons not to do this, than to do this, but in case you’re a visual learner, here’s your list:

Cons

- The guy you start dating is also dating your boss. She finds out and fires you.

- You chose to date the guy who has the worst reputation in the office, but you don’t know it because you haven’t worked there long enough. Everyone loses respect for you and you’re no longer CC’ed on happy hour invites.

- You end up going for the same promotion as the guy you just started dating, only he’s worked there longer and manipulates you to get what he wants.

- Your boss thinks you’re paying more attention to your social life than your work life and you either get passed over for opportunities or worse, fired. (yes, this has happened)

Pros

- You have a date on Saturday night.
- You feel attractive.

Starting to get the picture? Trust me on this. I am speaking from personal experience. Maybe, and I mean maybe, after you’ve worked at the same office for almost a year, you can safely date a co-worker. But that’s only if your Human Resources department allows it. I’ve had friends (women) who started dating an intern and had to keep it on the major down-low. That became the appeal of the relationship and once he was hired as a regular employee, their relationship hit the rocks. Even if a co-worker friend recommends dating another one of your co-workers, think things through first: how will a break-up affect their working relationship? How will it affect your friendship with your co-worker?

Once you’re in the “real world” the ripple effect from dating one person becomes much bigger, since you’re now skipping stones in a bigger pond. If you plan to work in that industry for a long time, keep in mind that certain circles are small, even though the city seems huge.

To end on a fun note, there are some great movies (and terrible ones) that explore this topic. Check out “Working Girl” with Harrison Ford. Total 80’s movie with huge hair and shoulder pads that would make the NFL jealous. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096463/ . If you love the classics, check out “His Girl Friday.” There’s also Jason Bateman’s “Extract” from 2009: “In Good Company” stars Dennis Quaid (aka guy who used to be married to Meg Ryan). ... And, of course, “Boss’s Daughter,” is available for those who like cheesy flicks.

From Passion to Indifference to Bitterness

2010-09-08T17:38:00.000-07:00

It struck me while I was watching a movie last night called “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.” Starring Simon Pegg from “Shaun of the Dead,” this comedy takes a snarky hack from his amateur rag in England to the high gloss world of American celebrity tabloids. It’s one of those money doesn’t make you happy type of stories, but Pegg’s character Sydney, feels a vocational pull towards serious journalism. There is a scene where he walks up to a newsstand on a New York City street, pulls the magazine from the rack and smiles gleefully at his own byline in black and white.

I used to know that feeling. I remember the rush it brought the first time I saw it in my college student newspaper, then during my first newspaper internship, and finally in the real world when my name as an editor had reached the masthead mountaintop. And then, suddenly, at 34 years old, I felt like one of those high school quarterbacks who used to hang out at Gators bar in Seminole County, Florida. You know the ones, the ones who pretend not to see the gut bursting out over their belts and still think their smile and a pitcher of Miller Light will get them into your pants. Okay, maybe I didn’t feel that bad.

Since magazines are still being published (date: 9/8/2010), I wondered if my nostalgia was brought on simply because my life has moved me past that part of my career. It’s more important to me now to have a stable paycheck than a byline in a glossy magazine, so …eh.

Or, more likely, it’s that I’m not in a position to spend 20 hours a week trying to find a publication that still prints hard copies that would be willing to chance some ink on me. It’s not like I haven’t asked. About a year ago, I sent a strong query to a national women’s magazine using all the right channels and buzzwords. Their reply? It’s not that I didn’t stand a chance, or that my clips were not good. They rejected me because there is already a really long line of people waiting to get that freelance assignment and it’s made up of former employees of the magazine who already know all the remaining editors personally. Ouch. Rough times.

So I take the consolation prize that is my content farm byline – the kind that doesn’t even get you discounted media rates at hotels in exchange for reviews. And why bother reviewing hotels for $2,500 per 1,500 words when thousands of people on TripAdvisor are reviewing them for free? Nevermind that they rarely provide any helpful details or perspective. I guess a content farm byline is better than no byline at all. Just in case, if on one magical day when Travel & Leisure comes calling, I’ll have current clips to show them.

Until then, I’ll simply share among fellow Sydneys that we are the real journalists, no matter what our beat. We are part of a print generation that would never have spelled The Beatles wrong in an article about Lady Gaga. That’s right Sarah McClure from Totalbeauty.com (which recently bought LifeLime), you wrote “from The Beetles 1966 "Yesterday and Today" album cover.” Oy. Not that mistakes don’t happen in print. They still do. I’m just bitter that McClure gets more clicks as a writer than I do because I’m not affiliated with a major outlet.

Rant over.

Documentary Filmmaker Study Brings Ethical Challenges to Light

2010-05-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

Documentary filmmaking is a profession of much independence and freedom. But with this freedom comes the need to make decisions that will impact the lives of those being filmed. Those decisions also impact the company airing the film and they impact the viewers. So many parties are being impacted by one person’s (largely on the fly) decision making! And yet, that person is making these decisions in a vacuum – apart from any industry standards or emergency hotline to call for advice.

Assuming the hotline idea is out of the question, do these filmmakers want guidelines? Do they want protection from decisions made by the network that will air their film? If they do, why are they just now bringing this up?

Some of the topics being discussed in this study include:
- Should these filmmakers pay their subjects? If so, how much?
- Should facts be removed from the final cut if they place the subjects lives in mortal danger?
- Should certain “lies” be “ignored” so the filmmaker can gain necessary access to subjects?
- Can historical footage be used to represent a generic event or theme?

These questions are explored in a study by American University scholars in a 26-page report published in September 2009. The official title of the document is Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmaking on Ethical Challenges in Their Work. The study is currently under review by members of Women in Film & Video, a non-profit organization that would like to respond to the needs within its industry. The DC chapter is particularly interested due to the large number of documentary filmmakers in the area, and the number of stations based here which air such films.

If there were an industry-wide standard, would these folks have more protection, or at least firmer ground on which to stand when defending their own work? And, even one would endeavor to write such standards, would getting consensus among documentary filmmakers be little bit like herding cats?

If an industry standard existed, then maybe the networks would have to obey it as well and not pressure documentarians to compromise the integrity of their film in exchange for ratings. The study contains anonymous accounts of pressure from commercial businesses that put these filmmakers in the conundrum of accepting a paycheck while denying their moral code. As funding has dwindled, one of the few steady streams remaining has come from cable, but at what cost to truth?

According to this study, documentary filmmakers would like to know how much they can “fudge” without stepping over the line. The document states: Many filmmakers noted that restaging routine or trivial events such as walking through a door was part and parcel of the filmmaking process and was “not what makes the story honest.” I think fiction, whether in writing or on film, must be full of facts and realism, so that when the crucial fabrication is introduced nobody questions it – you don’t lose your audience. The opposite seems true for documentaries.

The report concludes that boundaries and guidance are needed, as well as a safe environment in which people who work on these documentaries can discuss their challenges. Sounds like a job for the lawyers. My hope is that the result of this report and its ensuing WIFV discussion will lead to a preservation of the art of documentary filmmaking – one that prevents the same downfalls we saw in broadcast news.

The study quotes one filmmaker saying: “I am in their life for a whole year. So there is a more profound relationship, not a journalistic two or three hours.” (p. 9). In the Golden Age of journalism, reporters were given the same autonomy filmmakers have now and the budgets to spend hours on end each day for years investigating one story. But as shareholders gained control of the news industry, those investments disappeared. Today most reporters are just filling in the blanks of Mad Libs written by their publishers. The same will happen, if it hasn’t already, to documentary filmmakers without some sort of preservation.

Putting "The Joneses" In Context

2010-04-16T11:20:00.000-07:00

This past week I attended a screening of The Joneses at the AFI theater in Silver Spring, MD. I was curious about the casting of Demi Mooe and David Duchovny as “fake parents.” And I was even more interested in finding out of a “Hollywood” film was really going to bash materialism, or at least give it a good back hand. Director and co-screenplay writer Derrick Borte, kindly stuck around to answer questions after the film.

Borte, who used to work in TV news, said he knew the story would focus on the ripple effect celebrities can have when they sell things just by wearing them, driving them or eating them. He just had to frame the context of the story. So he took a non-celebrity family “unit” and placed them in a McMansion type neighborhood that could have been anywhere in American circa 2006.

Ironically, the script was written about eight years ago and Borte was worried that it had passed its time, and then worried it was too timely – if the movie had been released in the middle of the housing boom, would it have been more like foreshadowing instead of a parody? (…Borte insists he leaves you to draw your own conclusion of whether or not he is making a statement, or which statement he is making).

In 2002, USA Today reported that foreclosures were at a 30 year high. “As homeowner associations are the fastest growing segment of the market, this average is expected to zoom even higher,” it states. Oh, and it did. Monthly foreclosures reached 1.5 million around 2007 according to Realtytrac, then went up to 3.1 million in 2008 and estimated around 3 million again in 2009. Economists peg the 2010 number to be around 2.4 million. The crises left many people asking how and why, “everything seemed to be fine.”

In the vein of “things are not always what they seem to be,” this nuclear family starring Demi Moore as the pretend mom, David Duchovny as the pretend dad, Amber Heard as the pretend high school age daughter, and Ben Hollingsworth as the pretend son. (I had forgotten how well Duchovny could deliver a dry line that made me laugh out loud. In this sense, Moore was out-matched by him in a Cybill Shepherd in Moonlighting kind of way.) These four beautiful people move into a manicured neighborhood posing as a “real” family. They are in fact, not. Each of them is actually a sales person who gets paid/promoted based on how many people they can influence into buying the lipstick they’re wearing, the car they’re driving etc., simply by looking good in it.

Kudos to the scriptwriters for creating a successful plot structure and writing dialogue that let’s the actors do their job. The pivotal scenes are underwritten so well that it actually feels like they’re coming from the characters and not from actors who have memorized lines (see Date Night). The drama unfolds in a believable but not all too predictable way and the conclusion is satisfactory yet still leaves some unknowns.

Shocking, considering that the entire film was shot in 31 days somewhere near Atlanta, GA. Some of the reviews call the film clever but thin, or having a few holes. Considering how quickly this was done, I’m sure it could have been a lot worse. The fact that they got Gary Cole to play Larry, the envious neighbor in a miserable marriage to Summer, played by Glenne Headly was also a stroke of good fortune.

During the post-showing Q&A I was struck by the types of questions Borte was faced with. Some of them made me feel down-right embarrassed to live in Silver Spring, but that’s a matter for another column. He was asked about the Tiger Woods joke that didn’t end up on the cutting room floor (which was good because it was very funny). No, he said, he did not regret leaving that joke in the film. The most surprising reveal of the night was the fact that the producers did NOT receive product placement funding from any of the brands in the film. The explanation was that they didn’t think the companies would want to sponsor a film that could be seen as critical of the lifestyle affiliated with these luxury products.

The Joneses is more about lessons in overspending and, if you have a soul, you will eventually pay a price for pretending to be someone you’re not. It’s a comedy with dark notes that are well-placed. I’m glad the film released when it did. Perhaps it will make a few more people conscious of the material envy that controls the decisions they make. Not that it will stop banks from lending mansions to people who can’t afford it, but it’s a start.

D.C. Museum Rolls Out Red Carpet for HUBBLE 3D World Film Premiere

2010-03-12T08:58:00.000-08:00

On March 9, 2010, the National Air and Space Museum held the world premier of “Hubble 3D” in its IMAX theater. This event was significant for me because in the year the first female won the Oscar for best director, I got to meet Toni Myers, the producer, director, and a writer on this film, as well as one of the inventors of IMAX, Graeme Ferguson. I appreciate the release of this film because it reminds me of how much space exploration fuels the imagination.

The 43-minute film tells the story of three astronaut crews’ attempts to make repairs to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope, the only telescope created to be serviced in space. After the telescope’s first deployment in 1990, it required immediate attention because its lens wasn’t working. For a project that cost NASA more than $1 billion, the fuzzy pictures being sent back to Earth just weren’t going to cut it.

Servicing Mission 4 became just as much a PR mission as a scientific one. The crew aboard this shuttle, referred to as STS 125, brought the camera equipment needed to create the large-format film. Not only did they need to repair instruments, but they also needed footage for Youtube – anything to increase the popularity of the space program can be put to use.

There in Florida to provide camera instruction, was award-winning filmmaker Toni Myers, who produced and edited the first large-format 3D film to be shot in space 10 years ago. Too bashful to be called the James Cameron of NASA, Toni has gone where no other female filmmaker has gone before. From the depths of the sea to the limits of the cosmos, she has pioneered the way for big screen educational entertainment. “I wish the film could have been longer,” says Toni, who combined the footage collected over three missions. “I was surrounded by a gang of geniuses, so I didn’t have to do a thing.”

The astronauts she taught to be filmmakers felt the same way about her. “Toni is a wonderful human being,” said Megan McArthur, who walked the red carpet with fellow crew members Scott Altman, Michael Massimino, John Grunsfeld and Gregory Johnson. “Toni tells you the why,” says Gregory. “She really knows how to help you understand something.”

Director of photography James Neihouse and executive producer Graeme Ferguson, also co-founder of IMAX, were in attendance as well. After teaching all those flight crews how to use the camera equipment, I had to ask, “is it easier to teach a filmmaker how to be an astronaut or an astronaut how to be a filmmaker?” Neihouse smiled and said, “I think it was easier for the astronauts.”

Gregory, for one, has no plans to leave the space program and head for Hollywood. “It’s humbling to get to be a part of all this,” he said. “I really enjoyed it but, you are always aware of time when you’re up there. You have to compartmentalize and not spend too much time on any one thing.” That also includes staring out the window at planet Earth 347 miles below. Of all the awe-inspiring images in the film, the shots of earth taken from the shuttle are the most beautiful.

“Hubble 3D” hits wide release IMAX theaters on March 19, 2010.

www.imax.com/hubble

Dear Budding Filmmakers: Google Thyself

2010-02-24T07:03:00.000-08:00

For the last two or three years, I’ve been helping with the local chapter of Women in Film & Video events and showcases. There is one consistent theme among budding film talent that I felt necessitated an entire blog entry because I don’t think just saying it one sentence would help it stick. So, here it is: a whole article about chances you missed out on because we could not find you on Google.

In 2009, the president of Women and Film & Television International, Kimberly Skyrme, pulled together short film entries from around the world for the purpose of picking the best for a showcase event. Many of the submissions came professionally packaged with supporting materials such as stills, a synopsis, headshots, and web site addresses for more information. Some of them did not – which is okay – but when Kimberly tried to track down the missing information online, it was no where to be found. We really cannot stress enough how this puts that film on the teetering edge of disqualification. Think about it. Thousands of people around the world were going to see this showcase. But some poor filmmaker might have been left out simply because he/she was impossible to reach.

Say you don’t enter festivals and showcases. Fine. Is your information on IMDBpro.com? That's great! But those of us who do not pay for access to contact information (and some of us are assistants without our producer’s log ins at the moment), cannot see it. It’s wonderful that you’ve made it onto IMDB but if you cannot be reached, you cannot be hired.

I am completely aware that much of what becomes a fruitful endeavor in film usually begins with a known contact, or a friend of a friend who has a cell phone number. It would be a good problem to have that you spent too much time answering random phone calls or emails from investors and producers. So I ask: what happens when you Google the name of your film(s)? What happens when you search for your name?

It’s a widely known fact in the industry that people who are always creating content for other people spend the least amount of time promoting themselves. Even if all you have is a sample from the 48-hour Film Festival, put-it-online with your name and phone number or email address. LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter. These are all free and do not require daily maintenance. I’m not saying you have to be some kind of Brett Ratner or anything. A little effort here will go a long way. I promise.

Top 10 Movies of Last 10 Years

2010-01-18T09:55:00.000-08:00

Several media outlets have been posting their list of the top 10 movies over the last decade. They are sticking to mainstream Hollywood films and they are representing an already widely represented demographic. It inspired me to post my own list. Based on films I've seen (films I've not seen are at the bottom of this posting), here are what I think are the top 10 films from the last 10 years. I think they are tops because something about them stuck with me over the years or made breakthroughs in storytelling or both. In chronological order:

LOTR (2001, 2002, 2003)
Lost in Translation (2003)
Sideways (2004)
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Blood Diamond (2006)
Last King of Scotland (2006)
Atonement (2007)
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

If this was a top 20 list: Hurt Locker, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Matchpoint, Snatch, Juno, Bourne Identity, Crash, Resident Evil, The Cell, Children of Men, Count of Monte Cristo, Million Dollar Baby, Gladiator, State of Play...okay that's 21. So I'm not a math major.

Films I did not see that would have probably made the list: Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, Requiem for a Dream, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind...

What are YOUR top films? What did I not mention that you would have?

Avatar: A minority opinion

2009-12-26T19:45:00.000-08:00

James Cameron's Avatar is many things. Its amazing motion capture combined with its three-dimensional technology and CGI expertise is a truly unprecedented and beautiful accomplishment. While critiques warned us that the story line would not be original and the characters would be shallow they failed to warn us that the story was completely ripped off from the 20th Century Fox story in 1992 called "FernGully: The Last Rainforest."

Plot summary from Netflix: When a sprite named Crysta shrinks a human boy, Zak, down to her size, he vows to help the magical fairy folk stop a greedy logging company from destroying their home, the pristine rainforest known as FernGully. Zak and his new friends fight to defend FernGully from lumberjacks -- and the vengeful spirit they accidentally unleash after chopping down a magic tree. This fun, animated film features the vocal talents of Tim Curry and Robin Williams.

In "Avatar," the boy is enlarged to the girl's size, not shrunk. And there is a good spirit, not an evil spirit in the tree -- the invading mercenaries in "Avatar" chop down the tree regardless.

Only Avatar goes much, much further evolving the role of the "lumberjack" into a group of uniformed men and women who look incredibly similar to U.S. Marines. Despite Cameron's attempt to clarify that these are "mercenaries," the visual cues speak so loudly that they outweigh the original communication. For example: the clothes they are wearing are army fatigues. Clear. As. Day. Then they start throwing around terminology that we've been trained to identify with the U.S. military, terms such as "shock and awe," and "daisy cutters," and "fighting terror with terror."

As much as I wanted to suspend my sense of reality, because I am a big fan of sci-fi and great CGI work, the images of the two warring parties -- as fictionalized as they were -- reminded me too much of my own personal relationships. My maternal grandmother was Native American and paternal grandfather was part Native American. So in Avatar, all the images of the native Na'vi tribe were non-subtle references to people close to my heart. I also have / had some very close friends who donned those very same army fatigues when deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't care what your politics are, when you have a friend who is in the marines and you're watching men and women on screen being killed, your stomach can't help but flinch. Therefore, I did not enjoy seeing the mercenaries being killed just as I did not enjoy seeing the Native Na'vi being killed -- which means I did not enjoy anything in the last half / culmination of the film -- regardless of its graphic splendor.

And if you're going to rip off someone else's story line, you can at least do them the favor of retaining the best parts. Robin Williams as the voice of the bat was hilarious and memorable....so memorable, that as I watched Avatar, I recalled that bat's lines: "I'm blind! I'm blind! ...wait. It's a miracle! I can see!"

I also recalled scenes from "The Last of the Mohicans." During the part where Jack is introduced to the leader of the Na'vi tribe is a copy of when Daniel Day-Lewis comes in and rescues the girl. They even shot it over his shoulder in the same way...next I remembered "Dances with Wolves" and finally, and most happily I remembered "FernGully."

It’s the Advertising, Stupid

2009-12-16T14:26:00.000-08:00

I’ve worked in the American magazine industry for more than 12 years. I’m trying to understand why I am not super excited about the hand-held products being developed by the folks at Time Inc., Apple, etc. that will revolutionize the magazine experience. As of this blog posting, no one has launched anything. So what we’re really buzzing about is the concept of digital interactions with magazine brands.

An e-magazine, as Sports Illustrated shows, might look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyXvLnxyXk

Industry experts and analysts are making comments about how this technology could throw magazines a “lifeline” – since the print editions have decreased in size, frequency and number during the Great Recession. When money is tight, advertising budgets are the first to be cut. Paper isn’t getting any cheaper. With no concrete way to track the return on investment from a one page advertisement, it’s no wonder a “click through” edition seems tantalizing.

My opinion may represent a small fraction of the magazine consuming public, but I’m hoping my portion is the loudest. Some print magazines just shouldn’t become e-magazines. Mainly because I stare at a computer screen for eight or nine hours a day, at least. The content I read as a professional, I don’t mind reading online or via a hand-held device – I’m already there working anyways.

However, the content I read as a consumer, I prefer to have as a glossy hard copy. Even if frequency is reduced, there are just some magazines I don't want to read on an iPod or tablet. Some of these photo spreads are worth seeing in print. I know how hard art directors work to restrain everything they want to express into one treasured issue. Looking at a print edition of a good magazine is really a look at the best of the best. Someone spent the money and time to learn how to sort through all the images, fonts, content, text, shapes and sizes so that the reader is getting what they paid for. The people who produced it had a passion for the content.

I’m not convinced this has translated online. Digital content curators are being paid to win the search engine game. They only have Google’s best interest at heart. Not mine. So far, I think the results have reflected that.

And like the commercials during the Super Bowl, I look forward to seeing print advertisements. It’s too bad publishers can’t charge me more per issue – knowing, as a writer, what it takes to make a living at this craft. I’m one of the last dinosaurs who thinks good writing should equal good pay. I understand that these prices are based on elasticity and I’m sure the publishers are measuring this…right?

Unfortunately, the money that used to flow into print advertising just isn’t flowing there anymore.

With all the current digital means with which we can reach people, advertisers no longer need to pay magazine publishers thousands of dollars to market to their readers. Products have web sites, Twitter feeds, Facebook friends, text message promotions, and even email campaigns – all of which are free to the advertiser. In addition, they are also traceable. If a recipient opened an email, clicked on it, went to the web site, and bought the product, they know who, how, when and how much. (If e-magazines allow readers to do the same thing on editorial content, publishers must be drooling -- the question is can they monetize it while maintaining some semblance of editorial integrity?)

I’m no math genius, but if a print advertisement costs $90,000 in a monthly glossy magazine (like it did in Gourmet) and email is free….It won't be long before consumer magazines are bringing in maybe $20 in advertising per issue – which is interesting since that’s about the same price as an annual subscription charge to someone who already gets too many emails.

For more background information about this, check out the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/media/16adco.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1260975848-9sGxiG/JG5wlmLNLTn7izA

Killing Women Protagonists (How the film studios are failing to see the big picture)

2009-11-09T07:45:00.000-08:00

If Sigmund Freud died without knowing what women want, what makes Harvey Weinstein think he can figure it out? The recent debut of “Amelia” sparked a feature article in the Washington Post (10/25/09) about the lack of riotous support of lead female roles in the 21st century. As the article delves into the success and failures of films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Erin Brockovich," it points out that we’re seeing less and less instead of more and more roles like these for women. The steady decline over the last decade has now officially culminated in an all-out mandate from the studio executives to put the kibosh on any female leads. Women, they are saying, don’t support strong female lead characters in the movies – box office numbers prove it.

If only the Post author read Nancy Gibbs' article in Time magazine, which (10/26/09) covered “The State of the American Woman.” Never before, it says, have women been working so hard for so little while taking on so much responsibility. As more men lose jobs than women in this economy, more families are turning to the females for their main source of income, support and care. When and how would they ever have time to go to a movie, much less one that they would prefer to see? The article shows charts and graphs of the more diverse roles women are playing in their careers. It also lists the number of ailing parents and growing children they are responsible for these days. Yes, men are co-equals in helping out. But women, it says, are making a majority of the financial decisions, of which there are a plethora of highly important items. With such tight purse strings, not many women (and this is my own assumption) see a $10 movie ticket as more important than $10 cough syrup or $10 birth control pills.

Ann Hornaday’s Post article suggests that perhaps women get enough of a strong female lead in their own real lives. A box office analyst for Hollywood.com states that when women go to a movie, they want romance – to escape to a story where the men take the lead. Melissa Silverstein, whose industry web site covers this topic, says in the article that “Figuring out how to reach women and young women is the challenge for this business.” Clearly this business has figured out how to reach men though. They’ve had about 70+ years to fine tune the art of pitching to men, who 9 times out of 10 want action or comedy – we’ll call it the Dude factor. Try quoting that law of averages for anything about women. What can 9 out of 10 women agree on? …good luck.

Should moms stay at home or go to work? Should women live with men before they marry them? Should there be a female President? Even that last question is more polarizing than you would think. Writer-director Rod Lurie is quoted in the Post piece about his show Commander-in-Chief saying, “we found that men supported the idea of a woman for president more than women did.” Hey, if Freud couldn’t figure us out, we really don’t expect Hollywood to, so don’t feel bad.

As women grow in profit sharing, though, someone might want to look into it. While films like “Whip It,” and “Jennifer’s Body” may not attract the same demographic as “Amelia” or “Obsessed,” there are women who want to see these movies and are willing to forgo a $14 lipstick one week to see them. Maybe Mel Gibson’s character could put his clairvoyant hat back on and understand that after all the equal achievements women have made in school, work, and home, what we’re really looking for is a well-told story that we can see on our schedule not the studios.

American Beer Industry Documentary Features Underdog Labels

2009-10-12T18:10:00.000-07:00

In this 89-minute documentary, writer/director/producer Anat Baron uses her insider knowledge to educate and entertain about us about a $97 billion a year industry. Using engaging real life examples, stylistic presentation and clear explanations of complex historical and government structures, Beer Wars keeps curiosity on tap while encouraging consumer awareness.

As general manager of Mike’s Hard Lemonade, Baron created over 50 television and radio commercials. Her additional background as a Hollywood producer combined with her allergic reaction to alcohol provide for a surprisingly objective review of the industry. She cans mundane business detail into an entertaining box that’s easy to handle. By comparing/contrasting the tale of two small brewers with the giants who have dominated liquor stores and menus for more than 50 years, Baron provides a limited yet insightful look into the American beer industry.

Baron, who narrates the film, asks questions most consumers never think about, like where does your beer come from? As she goes on to explicate, American beer consumers are more limited in their product choices than they realize – though not as limited as 15 years ago (a point she fails to mention). Even as the choices become more diverse, it still remains a challenge to take a new brew to market. The reason is not so simple.

Beer is not like chicken or tomatoes. Beer has its own constitutional amendments*. In an attempt to explain this reality, the film juggles the complications of national product distribution, marketing and sales, and how the government regulates alcohol. And it does it pretty well. Baron guides us through the challenges of getting this product to the consumer using cartoon imagery in a clear, non-pedantic way, along with balanced interviews with entrepreneurs like Sam Calagione.

Sam Calagione has more than a likable on-screen persona; he also has one of the fastest growing local brew houses in the nation. Using his English degree to pull down relevant quotes in an impressive nano second is just one of his better qualities. He is also on the Inc. 500 list. After experimenting with micro brews as a bar tender in New York, Calagione launched his own and is operating successfully as the president of Dogfish Head Craft Brewery in Delaware – a state that did not allow such activity prior to his push for changing the legislation. Several of the Dogfish Head labels are chilled and tasted in boardrooms of Anheuser-Bush (along with other local brews). Why join them if you can beat them?

The other profile focus is on one struggling beer-industry veteran, who seems to be having a much more difficult time growing her business. Rhonda Kallman, founder and CEO of New Century Brewing Co. is peddling a caffeinated beer called Moonshot. Her unwavering confidence in sales stems from her successes as co-founder of The Boston Beer Company, makers of Samuel Adams. Kallman’s battle is uphill not just because of her limited marketing budget, but also because one of the biggest brands in the industry launched a similar product years ago and it bombed horribly – what’s known as a “category killer.”

The 1,400 micro-brew labels in the U.S. along with imported brews represent 22% of the total domestic beer market. On the other hand, 3 corporations, Anheuser-Bush, Miller Brewing Company, and the Coors Company claim the rest of U.S. sales. The point of the film is that those numbers don’t necessarily mean they offer the best product. “It’s about maximizing shareholder value versus maximizing taste,” explains Calagione. The big three also spend about $800,000,000 on advertising – including oodles toward political event sponsorships.

Today it is illegal for brewers to sell beer online. For now, the beer wars are taking place in “supermarket jungles” where eye-level space is sold at a premium. Consumers are encouraged to “vote with your wallet,” according to Baron. She also advises consumers to use the Internet to find out where your beer is from. There seems to be a massive shift toward the empowerment of the middle class in America. There is a hope than an educated consumer is a dangerous consumer to lazy mega-corporations. “We’ve seen too many examples where corporate America has lost its way or gotten in the way,” Baron states in the film’s promotional materials. “We should remove the roadblocks and allow free enterprise to flourish.”

I’ll drink to that. And I don’t like beer.

*Amendment 18
"the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

Amendment 21

"1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

What Do You Know About Taiwan?

2009-09-15T12:15:00.000-07:00

Last night at the Newseum the Formosa Foundation hosted an invite-only Congressional screening of “Formosa Betrayed,” starring James Van Der Beek as Agent Jake Kelly. This low-budget independent feature takes a highly complicated international murder scenario and removes the superficial glam but keeps the production quality. Some attendees were a part of the true events on which this film is based. For the rest of us, this film brought some truths to light for the first time in history. It also stirred the question, what do you know about Taiwan?

As with “The Last King of Scotland,” “Formosa Betrayed” combines real life characters and real events and twists them into a suspenseful political thriller. The challenge with “Formosa,” however, is that the audience has no historical knowledge of these events, or at least only an awareness of information “sanctioned” by governments as suitable to publish. Having to build in both a history lesson and a current events update gave these filmmakers an extra storytelling challenge. All of the script writers rose to the occasion with excellence. After four years of research, producer Will Tiao, who describes himself as “a creature of D.C.,” has produced a must-see film – not just because it’s entertaining, but because it’s a story that should not be suppressed any longer.

Imagine if Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc. had all been locked up in a room and killed just before the American Revolution. This is, in a sense, what happened in Taiwan in 1947. The intellectual leaders of Taiwan were assassinated by the Chinese government. To this day, it has been illegal to speak or write about what happened. So in the film, when a Taiwanese professor of economics in the U.S. starts to write a tell-all book, government insiders have him killed on the campus where he has just made tenure. (The professor's fictional character is based on several real life characters, one of whom was a professor at Carnegie Mellon who was murdered in Pennsylvania.)

His murder launches and investigation by the FBI, which sends Agent Kelly to Taiwan under strict orders to “observe and report.” His senior colleague Agent Tom Braxton, played by John Heard (Sopranos, Pelican Brief), turns down the chance to work on the case landing Kelly in a Lone Ranger role. Without knowing the language or understanding the local culture, he is forced to rely heavily on a U.S. liaison, played by Wendy Crewson, with a hidden agenda. Even though Agent Kelly is an outsider, the local investigator's claim that the professor’s murder is connected with mob ties seems preposterous. Using the same reckless abandon that earns Westerners the label of “cowboy” overseas, he begins to follow his own leads putting his life and those helping him in grave danger.

Historical facts that would normally be alluded to in one or two lines, must now take up several scenes and lines of almost pedantic dialogue just to inform the viewer about the Taiwan's desire for independence from China. The passion behind this plea is pivotal to the plot. If outsiders learn more about what the Republic of China has been keeping secret, the two million Chinese who control the 18 million Taiwanese on that small, humid island, just might lose their position. The threat of this loss is so high that China has, in reality, 1,000 missiles pointed right at Taiwan.

In the film, the U.S. State Department plays a strictly “hands off” role in aiding the investigation, when, in real life (at least according to the representative at the screening), a much more complicated and adversarial role was taken. While some liberties with facts had to be taken, overall the film successfully tells a powerfully moving story. It also keeps the viewer emotionally involved while putting together a Rubik’s cube of background information. The movie reveals the motives of the professor’s murder while keeping the torture and deaths of those trying to unofficially aide the investigation on a personal level.

Without the hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on marketing the film, “Formosa Betrayed” will not be showing in a theater near you. The marketing efforts are viral however, and if enough requests pour in to local theaters, film festivals and even universities, you could probably get your own viewing. Maybe then more of us will ask why 23 countries recognize Taiwan’s independence but the U.S. does not.

Watch the trailer on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KbAGhECVZE

Comparitive Analysis of "The Women" (1939 and 2008)

2009-09-10T09:06:00.000-07:00

Flipping through countless HD channels one day when I was home, I came across a 2008 movie called “The Women,” with an all-star line up. I vaguely remember hearing about it when it was released in theaters, but it didn’t sound like the kind of movie I would watch. I don’t know what made me think watching it at home for free would change that. After a few minutes, I realized I was watching a slow moving train wreck, but could not force myself to change the channel. I became obsessed with figuring out why someone spent all this money on this A-list cast for a film that, as a woman, offended every fiber of my being.

Since Diane English (who also did Murphy Brown and won three Primetime Emmys) decided to direct this remake, I decided to Netflix the original. After a little research, it became clear that the modern version suffered from what too many films suffer from: Executive Summary Envy. The original black and white version produced by Hunt Stromberg and directed by George Cukor in 1939 was one of the highest grossing films of that year. Based on a successful stage play written by Claire Booth Luce, the show ran for 666 performances and gained an earmark in history for the “novelty of an all-female cast…known for its nasty dialogue and unparalleled wit” (quotes take from the DVD features menu). With such a successful original, combined with a modern cast of beautiful, talented women, the overall summary of the remake sounds like a fantastic idea. People must have been so envious of that executive summary that someone forgot to read the script.

After careful analysis, I think I can put my finger on why this remake failed. In the 1939 version, the central character Mary Haines is aware that the women she is surrounded by are there because of their social status (they all married rich men on Park Ave). So when her “friend” Sylvie Prowler informs her of her husband’s infidelity with a shop girl through no small measure of taunting, Mary keeps a stiff arm in Prowler’s direction and keeps her chin up for her daughter’s sake – a daughter with whom she has a close and healthy relationship. (Prowler's character in the 1939 film reminded me of Lucille Ball). In the remake, Mary seems completely unaware that her social circle has formed around money, even if they didn’t marry a man to get to Park Ave. In fact, the Mary played by Meg Ryan seems to be oblivious to many things, including what it means to be a good mother, which removes any empathy the audience would need to have for the central character of the film.

Yes, the casting was off, but the writing flat lined faster than Ryan’s hairstyle. The original had lines like:

Personal trainer: “Women should enter the room vertical.”

Prowler: “Most women I know leave horizontally.”

And...

Prowler to Edie Cohen (played by Edith Potter): “You should get your hair done where I do mine. I simply despise whoever does yours.”

The 2008 film attempted at strikes like these but wound up with lazy fill-in-the-blank jokes. I won’t even waste time repeating them.

I also think that English missed the depth of Mary’s character evolution. The original took Mary away from her Park Avenue circles where she found herself among other Reno divorcees (laws in New York made divorce harder to prove back then when there were fewer no-fault divorce states. Reno probably had the shortest residence requirements). This new circle of women barely knew Mary and could care less for her social status so they had no qualms talking to her straight, making them, in the end, truer friends than the girls in New York.

It’s called a character arch and even comedies have them. But in the 2008 version, it’s complete missing. Or rather, it has been replaced by a shallow epiphany which dawns on Mary while smoking pot with Bette Midler’s character at a yoga camp. Ryan’s character is told to be selfish and do “what makes you happy.” Apparently this is English’s modern translation of the original “pride is a luxury a woman in love cannot afford.” If that is how far we’ve come in 70 years, we’ve got bigger problems than a poor remake.

Without the real women in Reno to balance the superficial women in New York, without the dubiously delicious mantrap character made famous by Joan Crawford, and without a sympathetic central character, what remains? The most depressing comedy of 2008.

While a bad script may have slipped by the studio, viewers caught every line. What Julie Tareynal, a vacationer from Spain, posted on IMDB.com says it perfectly: “The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair.” Don’t let the comedy genre fool you. English’s “The Women” captures the worst aspects of our gender and tries to paint over it with a clown face and perfume. The next time a film budget this big goes toward a remake, they might want to think about putting more of it towards a good writer.

Women in Film 2009 International Showcase Filmmakers

2009-09-01T19:58:00.000-07:00

When I interviewed these three women filmmakers for the Women in Film & Video e-newsletter, I quickly realized I was writing down more great quotes than would ever fit into the small 250-word allotment I was officially allowed. The article was intended to be a follow up with a few of the filmmakers who had popular entries in the annual International Showcase of women-made films, which usually occurs on International Women's Day. (the article can be found here on page 8: http://wifv.org/files/Sept09.pdf )

Their love of filmmaking and current sacrifices to achieve their goals called for more than just a brief mention in a 16-page PDF. Here are the outtakes, as it were, from those interviews (as well as a few corrections), and even this is edited down.

Jehan Harney:
1. Where did you get the inspiration for your film “Colors of the Veil”?
Everything involving the film was by chance. I knew the imam when I lived in Europe. When I came back to states, I met his family. I was able to chat with his wife, Kimberly King, and learned that she had an interesting story. You don’t hear this story often…a very unusual story. This is an interesting story for people in the Middle East, who think Islam and think of people who are usually dark skinned. You don’t see a former U.S. soldier converting. I found her very fascinating. She eventually gave in and let me film her. This film won the national award for best documentary from One Nation Many Voices…. You feel like people from different worlds can come together and become bigger than just themselves, extend their philosophy and you can see how people should treat each other…then to see it manifest itself in the community. Kimberly King and her husband have a great model.

2. What is your #1 rule in storytelling?
When I do a short film you just try to get point out. What I like is for the story to be in their voices, no narration. I like it to have a conflict, and see how we made it work. That’s why we’re curious about people’s stories anyway. I always look for [conflict] in my stories to make it advance forward, make people wonder what happened next. A longer film I’m working on now “Friends of America” captures the life of Iraqi refugees in the U.S. funded for PBS. It’s ironic that the country that supported liberation of Iraq, the only place the refugees could find safety, is in the U.S. And yet, it is the one country that took in the least number of Iraqis. This film follows two families who fall through the cracks of the U.S. system Their family’s story represents one-third of the refugees here. Their story is under represented because they are afraid to reveal their identities. Luckily I found a couple of families who trusted me wbc we share religion, city, culture. It’s always good when you tell a story in three acts. Their past, present future; its’ good to break up the story. Ask yourself, What’s unique about it? What else has been done on the same subject? Once you find yourself as interesting other people will too. How you lead to [the mystery of the story] can’t be always reveal everything up front; reveal a little, bit but not everything. Give the element of surprise once they think they see the resolution.

3. What else have you been doing?
I got to sit in on class for proposal writing…Paul Taylor is amazing with words. He dissected my proposal. He is The Proposal Doctor! …The whole point is to stretch your imagination; have distance from you material; look at it analytically. It can be a great eye opener to see other people’s work and build a network.

Vanya Rose:
1. Where did you get the inspiration for the Montreal Stories?
It was my master’s degree thesis... I was studying history/fiction and how to combine them, the urban history/fiction… Lon Walter Benjamin philosophy, theoretical stuff. Composition. (Editor’s note: When this story ran in the WIFV e-newsletter I wrote that the little girl’s character in 1944 was French Canadian. She was not. The girl is the daughter of recently emigrated Polish Jews. There is not much in the way of dialogue in the film.)

2. What is your #1 rule in storytelling?
A [film] has to come from the heart, even if you haven’t written it. I don’t think you can make a film if you don’t feel the attachment. It’s not a question of technique. I think you can tell a story around anything, even the most banal plots…Edith Wharton says there’s no originality… it’s about the ways of saying things. It’s having new eyes. I think that’s why women are on the frontier of [film]. There are a massive amount of men’s stories, which are great, but I think there are so many untold women’s stories, so keep a fresh eye on your own way of seeing the word and telling stories…not falling into the trap of all those rules because of story editors, etc. Naturally stories tell themselves a certain way. When you look at Asian cinema you see different ways of telling stories….

3. Can you tell us about "As the Night the Day"?

It’s really different. There is a male central character who is interesting. It’s much more traditional story telling because Mansfield lends itself to that. I felt like I was telling her story, ways I want to depict it. She was such a brilliant short story writer. When she died [Virginia] Wolf said “I have no one else to write for anymore.”….When it comes to directing, being an architect, instances where creative and control go together, women face a huge challenge. It’s the biggest issue for society….Women get less funding. People don’t mind women telling everyone what to do [in the case of running a corporation or a school]. What they mind is someone creative on set telling them what to do, expressing how they see the world. That’s really hard for people. As a straight women, I find it even more controversial.

Kat Candler:

1. How great is Jon Hamm?!?! (sorry, I saw your blog and could not resist):
I've only seen one episode of MAD MEN. Isn't that horrible? I've been making my way through WEEDS, EASTBOUND AND DOWN ... So I'm a little slow in getting to MAD MEN. I don't have cable so I only get an opportunity in a hotel room or parent's house to catch an episode not on DVD. But I've seen Jon Hamm on 30 ROCK and SNL and he's pretty awesome. And I just love his MAD MEN look. It's too perfect. He's what I envision for the lead in a family comedy I'm writing called CAPTAIN DYNAMO AND THE BOY RANGERS. (Editor’s note: In the WIFV article in the e-newsletter “Rangers” was misspelled.)

2. Where did you get the inspiration for “Quarter to Noon”?
I actually made QUARTER TO NOON the same month I quit that day job and went freelance full time as a filmmaker and film teacher. Very cathartic. For me, the short is about doing what you love.

3. What is your #1 rule in storytelling?
Every choice that you make should always be dictated by story. Music, sound design, costume colors, dialogue, it all goes back to the story and the bigger picture. I always tell my students, think long and hard about each choice you make. Don't do a camera move because it's cool, do it because it says something about a character, emotion, the tone or moves the story along…My #1 rule of filmmaking is to be nice. I don't work with mean or egotistical people. It ruins the experience and I think ultimately can ruin the film. I feel like a lot of hearts and hands go on a screen. And there's so much joy in the process of getting there.

Editor’s note: Check back later for a follow up on how these women’s films are progressing.

Dolphin Slaughters: Asking Tough Questions*

2009-07-23T11:25:00.000-07:00

Tucked away inside a picturesque Japanese seaside cove, the secret slaughter of hundreds of dolphins takes place each year. Dozens of fisherman herd them in, sell some of them to dolphin trainers, and stab the rest of them to death as they click and scream in panic. Their work is done when the waters are still and blood red.

Even if you don’t care that these dolphins are being killed, you should care that this is going on, because if it’s going on in Taiji, it’s most likely going on in other places too. Maybe not with dolphins, and maybe not with stabbings. The point is, we should all be asking questions about what goes on in secret, tucked away places, especially when it later emerges as “food.”

The gripping documentary “The Cove,” is a masterfully told story about the secret slaughter and selling of dolphins in Japan. What this film brings to light is the reason behind the annual slaughter and evidence that these dolphins are ending up packaged as “fish meat” in local markets. (Honestly I thought we put a stop to this when canned tuna had to have the “dolphin free” seal of approval.)

As SaveJapanDolphins.org states on their web site:

“It is commonly assumed that Japanese fishermen hunt dolphins to supply a small minority of Japanese people with dolphin meat. But unlike the expensive whale meat, dolphin meat is not considered a delicacy in Japan, and the real reason the Japanese government issues permits to kill dolphins by the thousands every year has nothing to do with food culture. It has to do with pest control. As shocking as it sounds, some Japanese government officials view dolphins as pests to be eradicated in huge numbers. During a meeting at Taiji City Hall, the fishermen of Taiji admitted this to us. "We don’t kill the dolphins primarily for their meat. We kill them as a form of pest control," they told us. In other words, killing the competition is their way of preserving the ocean’s fish for themselves.”

The truth is that they are actually hurting a delicate eco-system that actually helps support their food chain. There is little to no chance of re-educating these Japanese fishermen. Their misinformation goes back decades.

Film, however, can be an influential factor in pop culture. Now that these men have been “caught on tape,” it will be interesting to see how much influence it will have on preventing the slaughters this September. Much like the 1978 move “Faces of Death,” which shows seals being clubbed to death and the realities of a slaughterhouse line, “The Cove” leaves nothing to the imagination.

Since cows and seals are not as highly adored around the world as dolphins are, I would imagine the reaction to this film will be just as severe. Perhaps, together with the power of Social Media, we can find another job for these fishermen in Taiji.

In the meantime, hopefully there are others asking the question “hey, what goes on back there?” – and hopefully, they are bringing cameras. The next time you order fish, you might want to ask where it came from.

*Follow up today 9/1/09 from an email from Ric O'Bary:
oday is September 1st, the first day of the dolphin slaughter season in Japan. But when I arrived today by bus from Kansai Airport with media representatives from all over the world, the notorious Cove from the movie was empty. There were no dolphin killers in sight....You have to understand that this is SO IMPORTANT. These TV stations have REFUSED to cover the story in Taiji for years and years. NOW, for the first time, they have shown up, with cameras rolling. The head policeman talking with me even said, for the cameras, that the police are not there to support the dolphin killing fishermen. We shook hands, and they left.

Movie Review: "The September Issue"

2009-06-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

When Jim Clark productions gave the green light to make a feature length documentary centered on fashion industry legend Anna Wintour and her pursuit of luxuriousness at Vogue, they could not have predicted its debut during the Great Recession. Thankfully, director R.J. Cutler focused not on fleeting trends but on great storytelling basics. What audiences at the 2009 SilverDocs film festival got to enjoy was a brief glimpse into an expensive fantasia spearheaded by the "Pope" of couture.

"The September Issue" demystified several practical steps of magazine publishing that fictional portrayals, such as "The Devil Wears Prada," only served to distort. ("Running in Heels" should also be considered fiction.) The Market Editor, Virginia Tupker, is shown sitting at the table in a meeting with advertiser Neiman Marcus. The Editor-at-Large, Andre Talley, is exposed for what he really does (almost nothing, but his role seemed to be more about what he is, not what he does). And the infamous Anna sits donning her iconic sunglasses in front of catwalk after catwalk. Though their $300 billion industry is not the largest nor the most life-saving, Wintour sees no reason not to operate as the Gen. Patton of Fashion. The only Vogue staffer, however, who turned out to be a real caricature of himself was Talley. Despite her widespread reputation, Wintour did not come across as a vicious ice queen. Though it's understandable if you've been personally spurned by her that you might think otherwise.

Wintour is a businesswoman. She offers no more emotional feedback than Hilary Clinton and no less creativity than Carly Fiorina. The reality is she doesn't just make the magazine, she makes (or breaks) the designers as well. Yet, for some reason, fashion editor + female + beauty must = empathy/affirmation. In what can only be referred to as "the layout room", Wintour curates the signatures with an appreciation of the artistic right brain, but with a truly left-brained judiciousness. Her blunt comments about the appearance of people, their hair, their clothing, can be tactless, but funny. For someone who constantly searches for something "different", she seems to lack a tolerance for individuality at the cost of grooming.

Juxtaposing the Editor in Chief is Creative Director Grace Coddington, former model and fashion director from British Vogue. Coddington's fiery red mane signifies the passionate soul that lies beneath her polite manner. So inspiring is Coddington's work and life story, that this look inside Vogue would be as dry as its fictional portrayals without her.

The bickering over budgets, photo shoots, and articles of clothing between them is consistent with almost any publisher/editor or editor/art director conflict. Coddington is naturally and emotionally attached to the beautiful spreads she toils to produce and Wintour is not. The final call on what pages stay and which ones go therefore becomes a hated but necessary fact of publishing.

In an interview with the Washington Post's Robin Givhen (who used to work at Vogue), R.J. Cutler gleefully shared moments of the film's conception and creation. The formula for a great film is simple, he explained. "Look for people who care about what they do and they do it under high stakes circumstances." What originally began as a TV series, inspired by Vogue's "Party of the Year," detailing Vogue's annual charity event, developed into an alluring "de-mysticifcation" of one of the most influential fashion magazines. Thankfully, Coddington coalesced to the film crew she first told to "go away." "When they come together, it's electric," Cutler said describing Wintour and Coddington's interactions. He described them as a "freezer of precision" versus an "incubator of creativity." Talley, Culter noted, had to be shown sparingly due to his larger-than-life screen presence. "His outakes on the DVD will be more than entertaining."

Ironically, as the limelight of high-end designers fades and the metaphysical weight of Vogue's climactic September issue wanes, the magazine's secret weapon has seen re-ignited interest in her self-titled book GRACE: Thirty Years of Fashion at Vogue. Now available on Amazon.

Mixing Business with Pleasure

2009-01-28T21:34:00.000-08:00

Warnings against making personal information public via social media platforms abound. Recruiters tell college students not to put their spring break photos up online because it may cost them a future job. Employers hand out mandates about not letting their staff use social media platforms at work. The problem is, they are not telling the whole story. It’s actually all about whether you use your powers for good or evil.

A vice president from an advertising agency visited their client, FedEx, at its headquarters in Memphis, TN. Assuming that the agency rep was from New York or Chicago, as most advertising reps are, what would be his first impression upon arriving in the town that is home to Graceland? Imagine the culture shock when going from the chilly hustle and bustle of Manhattan to the sultry, slow, and spread out lands of the swampy south. Thanks to a web site where anyone can read anything that you want to write (Twitter.com), we don’t have to imagine. Mr. VP put his inner most thoughts right up there for the world to see. “Wondering if I would die if I had to live here.”

To those of us who appreciate a cynical sense of humor, this was extremely entertaining. Stereotypes a-plenty fill the scenes of this situation, which was summarized well in 140 characters or less. Fedex was not so pleased, as they were paying this person to improve their image and such a comment would do the opposite. While I can understand why Fedex would be upset, I don’t think they should overreact. Mr. VP, however, should rethink his job description and separate his business from his pleasure.

Some companies, large and small, old and new, are still terrified of social media. They don’t understand it and are more afraid of the damage it can do than the good it can bring. Mr. VP should have known Fedex’s true feelings about this medium. That’s his job. What he should also have known is that people should leave the bad news to the journalists. Major news networks get paid to deliver the negative, sad, and unprecedented downswing headlines.

If everyone used social media to only report good news, comment on positive things, confess how much they “loooove Memphis,” American corporations would warm up to it much faster, like an accelerated glacier instead of a regular paced one. Posting anything about yourself where the general public (and clients and employers) can view it, remains a gamble. It’s so easy to be a communicator for a specific audience in your personal life. Your friends have your sense of humor, or at least appreciate it. Your clients or your boss? …not so much. The next time Mr. VP thinks about Twittering a comment from his handy iPhone, I hope he remembers that posting personal comments online is like the dirty joke the boyfriend told his girlfriend, which was really funny – right up until her dad walked in and didn’t laugh.

Today on the National Mall (despite my fear of cold weather)

2009-01-19T19:36:00.000-08:00

I'm from Florida and moved to DC (from LA) about two years ago. I have no involvement in politics, and honestly, until now, very little interest in it. I actually work for a PR company. I'm Caucasian and wasn't even in the country on Nov. 4th to vote (my absentee ballot didn't arrive before I left). But today, in ridiculously cold weather, I walked down Connecticut Ave, got on the metro, and walked up the mall to the Capitol Building.

On the metro I overheard a woman from Houston complaining about what a rough weekend she'd had. After people found out where she was from, they did nothing but give her a hard time about outgoing President Bush.

Exiting up through the Smithsonian metro station onto the mall proved more chaotic than we anticipated. As we reached the top of the escalators, the crowd in front of us was not moving forward. Smashing up against wall of bodies in front of me, I dared not push back for fear of falling back down the stairs. I pulled out my camera as the police officer to my right called down to a metro operator below to halt the traffic. And this wasn't even the day of Inauguration!

As I scurried down the mall, trying to absorb the few remaining minutes of daylight, I heard children asking their parents questions like do other countries have black presidents? And a group of African American girls reciting every American President they could remember -- not necessarily in chronological order.

And, on the way home, somewhere around the Dupont metro stop, a group of men with expensive video and Nikon cameras were interviewing two young women in front of me. They donned formal gowns, bravely sporting cute black heels -- many local articles have warned against such endeavors. The man said he was interviewing them as part of the Emancipation Project. At least, that's what it sounded like from the back of a crowded train. The girls were on their way to a ball, as I will be tomorrow. What I remembered most about them was how they gave a "holla" out to someone else from LA standing next to them and how they commented about the number of people smiling as they entered the trains. I didn't have the heart to tell them those people were from out of town. Locals usually don't smile here weekdays between 9 am and 5 pm.

I've been down to the National Mall many times since I moved here -- visiting museums, running for exercise, and I was proposed to at the very spot where CNN now televises from. But today's memory of being on the mall made me a part of something bigger than myself. Is that why we all were there? Drawn in by curiosity, will we all stick around for optimism? If I base my answer on the short two years of living here and contrast it against what I saw today, the answer seems to be a resounding yes.

Hunkering Down for the Obama-cane

2009-01-18T16:11:00.000-08:00

I thought when I moved out of Florida in 2006 I would never have to use the phrase "hunkering down" again. But as more than two million people infuse the nation's capitol and temperatures hit numbers I haven't seen since I poked my head into the refrigerator, I find myself using those words again. As much as I want to be a part of the Inauguration Events, I've never been so happy to stay warm inside and watch the events on TV.

As I crossed over the Key Bridge tonight, trying not to hit the pedestrians walking home from the Inaugural Concert, I noticed a group of demonstrators in the triangular island. Their signs read "close Guantanamo"-- which is interesting since I think Obama said he had planned to do that. There were two men in orange jailsuits kneeling on the ground, hands behind their backs with black sacks over their heads near another sign about how torture was America's shame. I'm "used to" seeing such things in front of the White House, but Arlington? Really? Did the Secret Service relocate them? It just makes my couch look all the more enticing.

After Hurricane Charlie, people driving around Orlando saw things filling up spaces that they were not used to seeing. There were billboards laying in the middle of the freeway and trees wrapped in telephone wires like they were Christmas lights. Today, driving down Connecticut Ave, a main road through downtown DC, charter buses like giant dinosaurs lined the roads and bleachers on the mall sit like mysterious stones on a grassy landscape. Such anomalies are like telltale signs that a storm is coming. Stock up on water and batteries. You won't need duct tape, but this storm is likely to leave a lot of garbage in the streets and change a lot of people's lives.

For those who are wondering what it's like to live in Washington right now, it's similar to preparing for a storm: get all your errands run before Tuesday. Don't plan on driving around. More to come tomorrow...

Survey Says: America’s Headed Down the Tubes

2009-01-13T19:35:00.001-08:00

January 13, 2009

In an article published on Nov. 10, 2008 (I know this is not breaking news, folks), CNN/Opinion Research Corporation found that 16 percent of those surveyed said that “things are going well in the country today.” In case you doubt and require more proof, here: http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm. There are about a dozen legitimate polls from independent and network news organizations confirming the majority of people surveyed are either mostly pessimistic about life and just happened to take this survey, or there really is a wide-spread disapproval for what is happening with America right now.

To say that this country is not headed in the right direction conjures up images of a group of hikers lost in the woods – each with their own opinion of which way is the “right” direction. They all agree that they are lost. They may not all agree on how they got lost and they certainly cannot agree on how to become un-lost. Such is the same with the “general direction” of our country.

First of all, money has much to do with the negative emotions. When most Americans had a job, a credit line and possibly more house than they could really afford, then the country was the country headed in the wrong direction? Some of these surveys started back in 2004, before the housing industry and credit lines were shuttered. But it can’t be all about cash flow.

Are the people answering this question based on America’s foreign diplomacy? Europe’s distaste for Bush began around 2002, and these emotions were probably more based on the War in Iraq than our economy. Domestic organizations started calling for a return of our troops in 2006, at least two years prior to the CNN poll.

What are the factors contributing to this 83* percent of people giving “America The Movie” two thumbs down? Did it start with Enron? Iraq? Home mortgages that came out of candy dispensers? None of the polls seem to want to answer this question. If we can’t figure out why we all feel America sucks, how can we come to a common agreement that the country has rounded the corner and is headed in the right direction? Simply put, we can’t.

Saying that our country is not headed in the right direction is a lot like pointing out a bad movie. When a film stinks, it’s easy for lots of people to say so. People who do not share the same values or preferences can all agree when a story should never have been produced. But try getting the masses to agree on what makes a good movie. Good luck. Personal taste, however base or elite, tends to be extremely diverse. The same goes for approval of America’s path. Even when the Academy Award winning path is taken, because people’s priorities are so diverse, you’ll be hard pressed to find a poll reflecting such unanimous approval in a positive direction.

*http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/10/bush.transition.poll/

Unemployment: Not Such A Bad Thing?

2009-01-04T20:00:00.000-08:00

January 4, 2009

This article in New York magazine (http://nymag.com/news/business/53153) put seven faces to America’s unemployment statistic in their Jan. 5, 2009 issue. Two of these stories came from men who are now at home with their children all day, I’m guessing for the first time ever. Their egos and dreams were dashed upon the rocks and yet they were surprised at how their kids didn’t look at them any differently.

Of course they don’t. Kids typically don’t understand/care/remember that time when dad was out of work. They only remember when Dad (or Mom) picks them up from school and has dinner with them at the table. If spending more time together as a family is a by-product of getting laid off, then maybe unemployment isn’t such a bad thing. Little kids can be great reminders of what is important in life.

Unemployment presents us with an opportunity. Over the coming months, we have a chance to reevaluate our priorities and rethink our needs vs. our wants. It’s inevitable, as human beings, that we take things for granted during times of surplus. It also makes us bigger people if, during our times of need, we find ways to give. If the 7.10% of Americans who are out of work switch their mindset from being entitled to a job to being blessed with one, how would the rest of us be affected? (For one thing, we might not be the nation with the highest enrollment in Anger Management classes.)

Soon we’ll be headed back to the metro for our morning shifts. Employment will pick up again, albeit in new realms of unfamiliar industries. But before that happens it would be great if we could be transformed by what we hear. When the news broadcasts repeatedly how many jobs are being lost it’s up to us to interpret that as 4.5 million opportunities